Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Shelby County, No. 17-17-07, December 4, 2017: Easement not a valid Ohio conservation easement.

The City of Sidney (“Sidney”) began an eminent domain action against Washington Township (“the Township”) and Spring Creek Corporation (“Spring Creek”) for land owned by Spring Creek that sit above part of a large aquifer which [...]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky, No. 2015-CA-000499-MR, June 17, 2016: Ag conservation easement does not create public use protected from taking.

The issues in this case are (1) whether a taking of an easement on private land for a sewer line by the Water District is prohibited because of an agricultural conservation easement which the landowner previously [...]

This decision is about excluding evidence in a trial to determine how much the United States must compensate the County of San Diego for taking a small parcel of land subject to a conservation easement. The [...]

U.S. Supreme Court,No. 11-1447, June 25, 2013: Denial of land use permit for refusal of mitigation may be taking.

The following excerpts marked “Headnotes” are from the syllabus or headnotes prepared by the SCOTUS Reporter of Decisions, which are not part of the opinion of the Court. The excerpts marked “Majority Opinion” are from the Court’s opinion [...]

Share this:

US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, No. 11-50333, May 31, 2012: Time gap between historic building demolition order and demolition raises question of fact requiring trial, not summary judgment, on 4th amendment claim of unreasonable seizures and 14th Amendment procedural due process claim.

In 2008 the City of San Antonio demolished a building of some historic value. [...]

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District No. 2-09-0007 September 16, 2010: In this transmission line case, the Court held that the owners of a “centennial farm” on the proposed line’s location could not appeal the state’s refusal to take note of the historic landmark designation of their house because petitioners, in their application to the state [...]

Court Of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, 2 CA-CV 2009-0186, Aug. 31, 2010: Attorney fees may not be awarded to a private landowner who prevails in a regulatory taking case pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-972(B). The court analyzed the statute and concluded that attorney fees may be awarded only in a physical taking matter and reviewed [...]

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, C.A. No. 05-191 Erie, February 25, 2010.

The District Court granted summary judgment for the US against plaintiffs who own land that abuts or is traversed by a recreational trail in Elk and Cameron Counties, PA, who claim that by virtue of the operation of the National Trails System Act, 16 [...]

The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a trial court decision that a down-zoning of 9,000 acres “to preserve the unique camp-like characteristics of the Township,” including the Boy Scouts’ 4,748 acres property, did not constitute a taking. The court upheld the trial court’s ruling on summary disposition on [...]

In this case applying Texas’ Open Beaches Act (Tex. Nat. Res. Code Ann. §§ 61.001-.254) (“the Act”) the owners of several beachfront houses argued they should not be denied permits to repair their houses or forced to remove their houses after storms moved the beach vegetation line to the landward side of their structures. The issues included whether by common law a public easement existed on the beach, was it a rolling easement, did the Act required removal of the houses, and were the owners entitled to compensation for a taking. The Houston Court of Appeals concluded: Continue reading Brannan et al. v. State Of Texas et al.

Amending Massachusetts Restrictions

Amending Massachusetts Conservation and Preservation Restrictions 2017 is a detailed analysis, updated and revised for 2017, of the law one should be aware of when considering an amendment to an existing conservation restriction or historic preservation restriction in Massachusetts and when drafting the amendments provisions of a new restriction. Among the 2017 changes is an entirely revised section about the federal income tax deduction for a qualified conservation contribution, including recent developments.

Got news?

Submit news about relevant court decisions by emailing to jbockian@bockianlaw.com with "PLD" in the subject. Please include your name. Items that are used by PLD will be attributed unless you request otherwise.

To Subscribe:

Click the Reader, Email or Comments button at the top right of this page to select how you want to get the latest feed from PLD. Click here for Feedly reader: